attitude to see that we got the heaviest part of the bargain. That was at the end of January. From October to the end of January they had not even provided us with a draft agreement, and when it came it was diametrically opposed to the conditions set out in the contract. They had never been altered and we had been carrying out the work in accordance. What can be thought of these things? We wrote to Mr. Keys on the 2nd February as follows:—

We beg to acknowledge receipt of draft of Wheat Acquiring Agency Agreement, and we comment on same as under-noted. 1, Suggested alterations: Clause 2, Add after "excepting seed wheat" the words "poultry and pig wheat." Clause 3 (b), Delete the words "marking weights on bag." Clause 3 (c), Delete the words "providing stacking grounds." Clause 3 (d) Delete the words "to full capacity of truck." Clause 4, page 2, line 3, The wording of this clause is not clear, and should probably read "in exchange for such interim receipts, a certificate for advance shall from time to time be issued." The words "and a certificate" seem unnecessary. Clause 8, the words "the agent is responsible that the stacks be properly erected" should be deleted. The basis of the arrangement was for temporary stacking. Clause 11 (a), Small Sidings: 3,000 bags, and not 2,000 bags as stated in draft agreement, were laid down by the Scheme as being the limit, entitling us to the remuneration of five-eights of a penny per bushel. Clause 11 (c), Delete the word "actual." Clause 12, Delete portion after the word "follows" and instead insert "one penny per bushel on quantity of wheat as per certificates issued, such instalment on account of commission to be payable fortnightly and the balance to be paid on due completion of the terms of this agreement." Clause 14, Delete the words after "Minister" and substitute "such returns as have been customary in the past." The following points have not been provided for and the necessary clauses should be embodied in the agreement. The quality of wheat on delivery at depot to be judged on running bulk sample. The Chamber of Commerce f.a.q. sample to be the standard when ascertained. Provision should be made for three arbitrators, one being nominated by the Wheat Board, one by the agents, and these two arbitrators to nominate a third to act as umpire if necessary, the arbitrators to decide any dispute between the board's officers and the agents as to dockage being imposed on account of quality. The agents do not accept any liability beyond the amount of their profits, viz., one farthing per bushel. Any deductions made by agents from certificates are to be credited to any deductions made by the Pool for quality of wheat. The Scheme shall provide or pay the cost of all stacking sites as well as dunnage. The remuneration set out in Clause 11 of the agreement is based on all wheat received being away from stations and sidings by the end of April and the agent shall not be required to provide cover or protection for stacks at either as regards the supply of material or placing of same on or around stacks. The agent to ship wheat on terms to be mutually arranged. The above points are in accordance with the arrangements between us as borne out by the correspondence, but of course we do not bind ourselves to sign the agreement if all or any of the above suggested amendments be made. We would naturally require another draft of agreement to enable us to go further into the matter.

That was definitely settled. I want particularly to call attention to the letter from Mr. Keys in which he says:—

Adverting to your letter of the 2nd instant, received this morning, suggesting certain alterations to the draft Wheat Acquiring Agency Agreement recently submitted to you by the Scheme. I have to advise you that in view of the fact that the draft as submitted comprises the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into as understood by the officers of the Scheme, it is not proposed to submit a further draft agreement for continued alterations as may be required by you. We are prepared to discuss the draft as submitted and make any alterations thereto that are considered reasonable in view of past agency agreements made by the Scheme. I should be glad if you would arrange an early conference.

What I put to you is this: We got this letter on the 23rd August, and it is repeated several times between then and the carrying out of the work. We are carrying out work in accordance with the terms, and at the end of January we are asked to sign an agreement which in every essential detail is different and in every case is absolutely against us. When we point that out he replies that this is in accordance with the correspondence. How can a man who says that the wheat is to be taken on a running sample and then subsequently says it is to be on individual bag samples, be relied upon? First of all it says the Scheme is to provide all stacking sites and then the acquiring agents are to provide all stacking sites.

3165. There have been a good number of interviews, and I suppose there were interviews in regard to the contract?—Yes.

3166. Is there not an interview pointing out that the letter of the 23rd August is based entirely on the zone principle, one agent to each site?—At what date do you suggest? My recollection of the interview was what followed after the draft agreement. The only discussion which took place between us and Mr. Keys in variation of the agreement was purely on the question of the running bulk sample.

3167. As far as you know there was never any discussion on the matter between Mr. Taylor and Mr. Keys?—No, as I previously outlined, except that we had it definitely agreed to in writing that the zone clause should be eliminated. If you are handling wheat with zones and merchants in each zone, and then give one merchant the whole lot, how can that affect the question of the provision of stacking sites and the running bulk sample? If you put one merchant to run the whole State or one to run a portion of the State, the conditions of the agreement would apply equally in either case. Why should it be suggested that because the zone system was struck out the other conditions, which are in keeping either, are in any way altered?

3168. That was the attitude taken up at the time?—By Mr. Keys but not by the Minister. He attempted to put into us an agreement in which every case the variations were distinctly against us, and which would have resulted in practically bursting the business.

3169. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: When that was suggested you had received a large quantity of wheat on the running bulk method and issued certificates?—No. That clause in the agreement does not in any way refer to our sampling the farmers' wheat, but to what the Scheme charge us at the depots.

3170. By the CHAIRMAN: That is, checking your wheat into the depots?—Yes.

3171. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Was there any wheat in the depots then?—Yes, we had done a month's work. I want to show what was attempted to be put on to our shoulders by Mr. Keys. We wrote our objections and Mr. Keys refused to put in another draft. Our reply on the 8th February was as follows:—

Re agency agreement—We beg to acknowledge receipt of your favour of the 5th inst. We have to advise that the basis upon which we are operating is clearly set out in the correspondence which has passed between us. As soon as you submit to us a draft agreement embodying the terms and conditions set out by the correspondence we shall be please to confer with you to discuss all points without delay. There are so many omissions from the first draft submitted by you that we cannot see that any good object would be secured by taking same as a basis.

From end to end the thing was wrong. We were replied to on the 11th February as follows:—

Adverting to your letter of the 8th inst., I have the honour by direction to advise you that no further draft agreements can be submitted to you until the matters in dispute are discussed and determined. Will you please arrange for a conference as early as possible. A time either to-day or to-morrow could be made to suit the case.

On the 13th February we wrote again:—

With reference to our call upon you yesterday afternoon, we confirm the arrangement then made that some of the matters at issue between us,